First, former Clinton advisor Dick Morris on the O'Reilly Factor on his thoughts before Bush gave his speech:
1) latest Fox poll showed that, of those surveyed, 45% agreed that the biggest problem facing the country was Iraq. The next most important issue (not mentioned) registered a mere 10%. Morris suggested that Bush steer clear of the "one-issue" presidency
2) in response, O'Reilly quoted a Gallup Poll which stated 86% of Americans are satisfied with their life here...so, he wondered, can President Bush really get around the question of Iraq?
3) Morris suggested that Bush address the following topics to highlight some recent strong points of the presidency: low unemployment; strides made in reducing the terror threat from North Korea, Iran, and Somalia; and low gas and oil prices
4) Lastly, Morris wanted Bush to address fixing Social Security ("everything should be on the table") and energy independence.
Fox News' Brit Hume summed up the speech before it began, saying that Bush would try to reach common ground by addressing gasoline usage, health care reform, and the Iraq war - all of which he did cover...not so sure about the "common ground" part, however.
By the way, did anyone actually notice Michael J. Fox in the audience? Apparently he was there...
Considering the speech Bush gave only a few weeks ago, the Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes did not have high expectations for the context of the speech, predicting a non-confrontational assessment of the State of the Union, with a focus on energy and education. He also wanted viewers to note the Democratic response to any of Bush's talking points.
Roll Call's Mort Kondracke safely predicted a thunderous clapping when Bush brought up personal responsibility for the Iraqi people, but a muted applause when Bush explained that, in order to achieve the goals in Iraq, the U.S. military would need time.
Before the speech began, Hume took a jab at presidential hopeful (to use the term graciously) Dennis Kucinich, asserting humorously that this speech gave Kucinich "more air time than he has ever gotten in his political life."...it's always about campaigning, right?
Now, for the speech (first, what I took from it, followed by links):
- the introduction for Nancy Pelosi, followed by heartfelt recognition from constituents, was a classy move on the part of the President (Chris Matthews called it "chivalrous"), and I thought she received the applause pretty graciously. It was a great start...but did it give the Dems hope? Well...probably not.
- Bush claimed he was "willing to cross the (political) aisle when work had to be done", explaining that people didn't care what party you were from, as long as you got the job done. This received an appreciative applause but I'm not sure Dems should buy into it absent from "comprehensive immigration reform" and the minimum wage hike. Going through his bullet points, we'll see if "common ground" is reached on any other issues.
- the early positive statistic Bush spouted was on the economy: 41 straight months of uninterrupted job growth, creating 7.2 million jobs in that span (pretty sure that was the right time frame). Unemployment and inflation both very low - Bush encouraged the growth of the economy not through more GOVERNMENT, but more ENTERPRISE. Dems did NOT like this line as Pelosi seemed to bite her lower lip, while Republicans went nuts. I personally thought the point was well taken, and he's proven that his hands-off approach to the economy works.
- Bush plans to outline a goal that eliminates the federal budget within 5 years - everyone could come together on that issue; however, when he said he planned to do it without raising taxes, Democrats fell silent. I found this especially telling - I'd like to see this report when it's released, it's a very intriguing idea...and one that Dems don't buy at the moment.
- he vowed to end the practice of earmarks - of which both Dems and Republicans are guilty of exploiting. Unfortunately, he didn't mention the role that bloggers played to get this legislation passed. I was hoping he would, but not expecting it.
- rhetoric that Social Security is failing, which we should all know by now. Not sure that the "Reagan era...is still alive in the Bush White House."
- he asked Congress to re-authorize the No Child Left Behind Act. Dems didn't approve of the idea of "school choice" which Bush brought up. I honestly have never understood this one and would love for someone to come up with good reasons why school choice doesn't benefit everyone. For whatever reasons, Dems hate it. I think it's a great start to solving our dwindling public school system.
- health care through tax deductions - Dems hated this too. We should expand Health Savings Accounts (no response from Dems) and should legislate Medical Liability Reform to protect good doctors from "junk lawsuits" (are you listening, John Edwards?) He asserted that the relationship between a patient and his doctor should be the overriding factor in determining treatment, not the government
- immigration - ugh. The shot of Tom Tancredo shaking his head said it all. "No animosity, no amnesty" didn't make much sense to me. Signing "comprehensive immigration reform" into law will please the Dems greatly (and some Republicans, too - read anything Linda Chavez ever seems to write).
- energy and the environment: reduce gasoline usage by 20% in the next 10 years. Now THAT sounds ambitious - again, I'd like to see plan outlines for that. Also, an increase twofold of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve...oops, he lost the Dems again! He called for the U.S. to be "better stewards of the environment" and "confront global climate change" - Dems liked this, but, unless I missed it, he didn't really outline a strategy to confront global climate change...
- a brief bit on the courts and how nominees are due prompt, fair hearings - a bit of a shot to Dems, which I'll expound upon in a later post
then, on to TERROR. I'm not going to be super extensive here because much of it was addressed in his speech a few weeks ago and the themes are pretty much the same. But some key points:
- BEST LINE (paraphrase): "Success measured by things that have NOT happened - and to those men and women who have prevented it, WE OWE A DEBT OF GRATITUDE TO THOSE PUBLIC SERVANTS."...It's not something that's often recognized or even acknowledged, heroes that go unnoticed because terrorism does NOT strike again...and not just soldiers, but just vigilant citizens. Extraordinary recognition on the part of the president.
- he pointed out that our enemies have adjusted their tactics in 2006 after a relatively successful 2005, citing steps backward in Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq. This was tough to listen to, if you're a proponent of the war or not.
- SECOND BEST LINE: "You did not vote for FAILURE."...Ouch, Dems...(to be fair, Republicans too)
- the War on Terror will be a generational struggle - he will develop a special, bipartisan advisory council on the War on Terror...this is quite intriguing. Who will be named to this panel? And what will their role exactly be?
I won't get into the special guests because, although worthy guests, their stories largely are not political. I'll tackle Jim Webb's response in a later post.
Full text of speech via Drudge.
Thorough coverage as usual from Michelle Malkin.
Live blogging from Mary Katharine Ham, Captain Ed, and Ace of Spades (ha!).
More reaction, and fallout, to come.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
If I Were A Meteorologist…
…I’d be fired.
Just look at the outright BULLYING behind this junk science:
“(The Weather Channel’s Heidi) Cullen’s call for decertification of TV weatherman who do not agree with her global warming assessment follows a year (2006) in which the media, Hollywood and environmentalists tried their hardest to demonize scientific skeptics of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers" and former Vice President turned foreign lobbyist Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers."
And…
"Cullen’s call for suppressing scientific dissent comes at a time when many skeptical scientists affiliated with Universities have essentially been silenced over fears of loss of tenure and the withdrawal of research grant money."
OUTRAGEOUS. And she calls herself a woman of science? I wonder if she’s considered what her call for decertification might do:
"Cullen’s call for decertification by the AMS can only serve to intimidate skeptics and further chill free speech in the scientific community. Stripping the "Seal of Approval" from broadcast meteorologists could affect their livelihoods, impact their salaries and prestige."
Really, it’s unbelievable – essentially willing to ruin other people’s lives for her pet cause.
So many links on this piece worth looking at – be sure to check it out.
Here’s her blog if you want to voice your opinion…be respectful, of course.
Just look at the outright BULLYING behind this junk science:
“(The Weather Channel’s Heidi) Cullen’s call for decertification of TV weatherman who do not agree with her global warming assessment follows a year (2006) in which the media, Hollywood and environmentalists tried their hardest to demonize scientific skeptics of manmade global warming. Scott Pelley, CBS News 60 Minutes correspondent, compared skeptics of global warming to "Holocaust deniers" and former Vice President turned foreign lobbyist Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers."
And…
"Cullen’s call for suppressing scientific dissent comes at a time when many skeptical scientists affiliated with Universities have essentially been silenced over fears of loss of tenure and the withdrawal of research grant money."
OUTRAGEOUS. And she calls herself a woman of science? I wonder if she’s considered what her call for decertification might do:
"Cullen’s call for decertification by the AMS can only serve to intimidate skeptics and further chill free speech in the scientific community. Stripping the "Seal of Approval" from broadcast meteorologists could affect their livelihoods, impact their salaries and prestige."
Really, it’s unbelievable – essentially willing to ruin other people’s lives for her pet cause.
So many links on this piece worth looking at – be sure to check it out.
Here’s her blog if you want to voice your opinion…be respectful, of course.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Minimum Wage Arguments
Minimum wage legislation is basically feel-good legislation. Giving poor people more money is GOOD, right? And many on the left would like you to believe that those making minimum wage are in fact poverty stricken.
But...is that what raising the minimum wage actually does? Could it in fact HURT poor people?
First, from John Stossel, who talks about "sticking it to low-skilled workers" - the conclusion to this piece is quite telling, as he borrows a quote from economist Walter Williams:
"As George Mason University economist Walter Williams says, 'It's tempting to think of higher minimum wages as an anti-poverty weapon, but such an idea doesn't even pass the smell test. After all, if higher minimum wages could cure poverty, we could easily end worldwide poverty simply by telling poor nations to legislate higher minimum wages.'"
Is that common-sense thinking, or is Williams wrong here?
Stossel talks about why a supply-and-demand approach works when it comes to the labor force and minimum wage. He explains why government mandate simply won't work:
"The law of supply and demand works in the labor market, too. If government mandates a higher minimum wage, some workers will get a raise. Some. But something else will happen. Employers will hire fewer low-skilled workers. Others will let some current workers go. Some will choose not to expand their businesses. A few will close altogether. If an employer believes a worker creates only about $5.15 worth of value on the job, he won't pay $7, even if the government demands it."
And, as he goes on further to explain, the victims of this legislation will not be highlighted in the press - instead, they will likely become part of the welfare state they were probably trying to avoid in the first place BY WORKING.
More evidence stated plainly from George Will.
"Most of the working poor earn more than the minimum wage, and most of the 0.6 percent (479,000 in 2005) of America's wage workers earning the minimum wage are not poor. Only one in five workers earning the federal minimum live in families with household earnings below the poverty line. Sixty percent work part-time and their average household income is well over $40,000. (The average and median household incomes are $63,344 and $46,326 respectively.)
"Forty percent of American workers are salaried. Of the 75.6 million paid by the hour, 1.9 million earn the federal minimum or less, and of these, more than half are under 25 and more than a quarter are between 16 and 19. Many are students or other part-time workers. Sixty percent of those earning the federal minimum or less work in restaurants and bars and are earning tips -- often untaxed, perhaps -- in addition to their wages. Two-thirds of those earning the federal minimum today will, a year from now, have been promoted and be earning 10 percent more. Raising the minimum wage predictably makes work more attractive relative to school for some teenagers, and raises the dropout rate. Two scholars report that in states that allow persons to leave school before 18, a 10 percent increase in the state minimum wage caused teenage school enrollment to drop 2 percent."
More from one of my favorites, Mona Charen. She quotes Democratic rhetoric following passage of the minimum wage bill in Congress:
"'...With the passage of this crucial legislation, we will reward work, paying America's workers a decent wage so they may join in our nation's prosperity,' declared Speaker Pelosi. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer chimed in that 'You should not be relegated to poverty if you work hard and play by the rules.' Rep. Bill Pascrell proclaimed that 'The little guy is not going to be forgotten any longer.'"
This goes back to Williams' point. These quotes seem to illustrate that Dems (and some Republicans, as Charen notes) have solved the poverty issue. If that's the case, why not speak to leaders of, say, North Korea (they're so fond of being diplomatic, aren't they) and tell them to stop starving their millions of citizens and give them a "living wage" to end poverty? And how do they know what a "living wage" actually is? And why can't they trust the American people to earn it for themselves?
Here's an attempted refutation of all the above from Media Matters - try to be fair and balanced, right? The site references two pieces from ABC News it claims are biased, reported by Jake Tapper and Betsy Stark. Look at what Stark says in her piece:
"STARK: For the nearly two million Americans who worked for the minimum wage, the 10-year status quo has been painful. While their wages have stood still, rents have gone up 34 percent. The cost of seeing a doctor is up 30 percent. A gallon of milk is 29 percent more. A gallon of gas has more than doubled."
Ummm...isn't there some sort of implication here that these two million people have stayed at minimum wage level for 10 years? Not sure about the authenticity of that statement...
Also, both pieces comment on Congress fattening its own wallets without raising the minimum wage for everyone else - fairly critical, right?
I don't see a "conservative bias" here, and Media Matters just seems wrong to me.
We'll see how this legislation plays out in the real world.
But...is that what raising the minimum wage actually does? Could it in fact HURT poor people?
First, from John Stossel, who talks about "sticking it to low-skilled workers" - the conclusion to this piece is quite telling, as he borrows a quote from economist Walter Williams:
"As George Mason University economist Walter Williams says, 'It's tempting to think of higher minimum wages as an anti-poverty weapon, but such an idea doesn't even pass the smell test. After all, if higher minimum wages could cure poverty, we could easily end worldwide poverty simply by telling poor nations to legislate higher minimum wages.'"
Is that common-sense thinking, or is Williams wrong here?
Stossel talks about why a supply-and-demand approach works when it comes to the labor force and minimum wage. He explains why government mandate simply won't work:
"The law of supply and demand works in the labor market, too. If government mandates a higher minimum wage, some workers will get a raise. Some. But something else will happen. Employers will hire fewer low-skilled workers. Others will let some current workers go. Some will choose not to expand their businesses. A few will close altogether. If an employer believes a worker creates only about $5.15 worth of value on the job, he won't pay $7, even if the government demands it."
And, as he goes on further to explain, the victims of this legislation will not be highlighted in the press - instead, they will likely become part of the welfare state they were probably trying to avoid in the first place BY WORKING.
More evidence stated plainly from George Will.
"Most of the working poor earn more than the minimum wage, and most of the 0.6 percent (479,000 in 2005) of America's wage workers earning the minimum wage are not poor. Only one in five workers earning the federal minimum live in families with household earnings below the poverty line. Sixty percent work part-time and their average household income is well over $40,000. (The average and median household incomes are $63,344 and $46,326 respectively.)
"Forty percent of American workers are salaried. Of the 75.6 million paid by the hour, 1.9 million earn the federal minimum or less, and of these, more than half are under 25 and more than a quarter are between 16 and 19. Many are students or other part-time workers. Sixty percent of those earning the federal minimum or less work in restaurants and bars and are earning tips -- often untaxed, perhaps -- in addition to their wages. Two-thirds of those earning the federal minimum today will, a year from now, have been promoted and be earning 10 percent more. Raising the minimum wage predictably makes work more attractive relative to school for some teenagers, and raises the dropout rate. Two scholars report that in states that allow persons to leave school before 18, a 10 percent increase in the state minimum wage caused teenage school enrollment to drop 2 percent."
More from one of my favorites, Mona Charen. She quotes Democratic rhetoric following passage of the minimum wage bill in Congress:
"'...With the passage of this crucial legislation, we will reward work, paying America's workers a decent wage so they may join in our nation's prosperity,' declared Speaker Pelosi. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer chimed in that 'You should not be relegated to poverty if you work hard and play by the rules.' Rep. Bill Pascrell proclaimed that 'The little guy is not going to be forgotten any longer.'"
This goes back to Williams' point. These quotes seem to illustrate that Dems (and some Republicans, as Charen notes) have solved the poverty issue. If that's the case, why not speak to leaders of, say, North Korea (they're so fond of being diplomatic, aren't they) and tell them to stop starving their millions of citizens and give them a "living wage" to end poverty? And how do they know what a "living wage" actually is? And why can't they trust the American people to earn it for themselves?
Here's an attempted refutation of all the above from Media Matters - try to be fair and balanced, right? The site references two pieces from ABC News it claims are biased, reported by Jake Tapper and Betsy Stark. Look at what Stark says in her piece:
"STARK: For the nearly two million Americans who worked for the minimum wage, the 10-year status quo has been painful. While their wages have stood still, rents have gone up 34 percent. The cost of seeing a doctor is up 30 percent. A gallon of milk is 29 percent more. A gallon of gas has more than doubled."
Ummm...isn't there some sort of implication here that these two million people have stayed at minimum wage level for 10 years? Not sure about the authenticity of that statement...
Also, both pieces comment on Congress fattening its own wallets without raising the minimum wage for everyone else - fairly critical, right?
I don't see a "conservative bias" here, and Media Matters just seems wrong to me.
We'll see how this legislation plays out in the real world.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Who to Vote for in 2008? Part III
John Edwards
Honestly, I didn't know a lot about him, so I had to do some digging.
For starters, a good article from Kathleen Parker of the Orlando Sentinel on the unfortunate timing of Edwards' announcement. A perfect summation of his press conference towards the end of the piece:
"Passionate, but not overwrought, he conveyed the persona of a deeply caring man who wants to make the world a better place. Either that, or the persona of a deeply cunning litigator adept at pulling a jury's heartstrings, which usually precedes the pulling of someone else's purse strings."
Whose purse strings were pulled? From his website, a description of his life before politics:
"For the next 20 years, John dedicated his career to representing families and children just like the families he grew up with in Robbins (North Carolina). Standing up against the powerful insurance industry and their armies of lawyers, John helped these families through the darkest moments of their lives to overcome tremendous challenges. His passionate advocacy for people like the folks who worked in the mill with his father earned him respect and recognition across the country."
What exactly does this mean? Kirsten Powers has argued on John Gibson's "The Big Story" that Republicans have little basis to criticize Edwards' abundant wealth - after all, wasn't he living the "American Dream" through hard work? He didn't grow up with a lot of money, being the son of a mill worker (Did you get that part yet?), and received a public education. He studied hard in law school and won big settlements for the "little guy" in heart-wrenching cases involving cerebral palsy and brain damage. Now it seems every time you turn around he's helping the downtrodden of New Orleans - isn't that be something President Bush should be doing, Dems argue?
On the face of it, not a bad argument. But let's look into how exactly Edwards achieved his wealth.
Via CNSNews, a "Heart-Wrenching Plea":
"But some of Edwards' critics say that as a trial lawyer, he relied more on his verbal skills than the latest scientific evidence to persuade juries that the doctors' mistakes had been instrumental in causing the cerebral palsy in the infants.
"Edwards' trial summaries 'routinely went beyond a recitation of his case to a heart-wrenching plea to jurors to listen to the unspoken voices of injured children,' according to a comprehensive analysis of Edwards' legal career by The Boston Globe in 2003.
"The Globe cited an example of Edwards' oratorical skills from a medical malpractice trial in 1985. Edwards had alleged that a doctor and a hospital had been responsible for the cerebral palsy afflicting then-five-year-old Jennifer Campbell.
"'I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her (Jennifer), I feel her presence,' Edwards told the jury according to court records. '[Jennifer's] inside me and she's talking to you ... And this is what she says to you. She says, 'I don't ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don't ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.''
"Edwards' emotional plea worked. Jennifer Campbell's family won a record jury verdict of $6.5 million against the hospital where the girl was born -- a judgment reduced later to $2.75 million on appeal. Edwards also settled with Jennifer's obstetrician for $1.5 million.
"Legal expert Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the book, The Rule of Lawyers, said Edwards' success in court was due in large part to his mastery of one important trait.
"'Edwards was clearly very good at managing the emotional tenor of a trial and that turns out to be at least as important as any particular skill in the sense of researching the fine points of law,' Olson told CNSNews.com .
"'These are the skills that you find in successful trial lawyers. They can tell a story that produces a certain emotional response. It's a gift,' Olson added.
"However, Olson believes trial lawyers 'have been getting away with an awful lot in cerebral palsy litigation,' by excluding certain scientific evidence.
"'[Trial lawyers] have been cashing in on cases where the doctor's conduct probably did not make any difference at all -- cases where the child was doomed to this condition based on things that happened before they ever got to the delivery room,' Olson said."
Read the rest of the "scientifically unfounded" article.
Here's a report from Trial Lawyers Inc., detailing the truth about our lawsuit culture (from 2003). You can see why someone would want to get into the trial lawyer business after reading this - seems like an easy way to make a quick buck - or, a quick million bucks, as the case may be.
More from National Review, from when Edwards was named Kerry's running mate in 2004:
"... 19 of Edwards's top 20 donors were plaintiffs' lawyers, 86 percent of his Senate campaign contributions came from personal-injury lawyers, and almost two-thirds of his field-leading presidential-campaign contributions last spring came from trial lawyers, their families, and their staffs. The Edwards campaign has even enjoyed the use of four private jets owned by his trial-lawyer buddies.
"The trial lawyers know their compatriot well. Since his election to the Senate, Edwards has voted consistently with their interests — against class-action reforms, against medical-malpractice reforms, against solutions to the asbestos bankruptcy crisis, even against proposed limitations on personal-injury lawsuits in the event of a terrorist attack."
Fantastic.
But there are more issues besides how Edwards achieved financial success and subsequently financed his political campaigns. Like, for instance, the Iraq War.
This is his Washington Post Op-ed piece in November 2005, where he famously declared "I was wrong." Here's the opening:
"Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda."
"What we were told"??? David Limbaugh's Bankrupt:
"Senator John Edwards said, 'Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons.' Later Edwards said he had made a mistake in supporting the Iraq war resolution and sharply criticized President Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld - a clear attempt, which was successful - to get himself back in the good graces of his party's leftist antiwar base."
Who has a political agenda NOW? As for whether or not Iraq had WMD before the war, Limbaugh cites evidence that WMD that Saddam Hussein bought from the Russians were moved to Syria and Lebanon before the war started. It also appears that WMD were even found IN IRAQ. (see pages 23 - 28 of Bankrupt).
The AP likened Edwards to Martin Luther King when he called out Hillary Clinton, saying "Silence is betrayal, and I believe it is a betrayal not to speak out against the escalation of the war in Iraq." Of course, at the time, Hillary was in Iraq and Afghanistan and unable to respond...interesting...not sure if Edwards has ever visited the troops? If he does, hopefully his opponents on the left won't use the opportunity to attack him without ability to responds, as he did to Hillary.
On other issues:
Abortion: He believes it is a constitutionally protected right, he voted no on banning even partial-birth abortions, he has a 100% favorability rating with NARAL, and he wants expanded embryonic stem cell research.
Minimum Wage: an increase, naturally. More reason not to support a minimum wage hike coming in a later post.
Civil Rights: Can this guy spin or what? An excerpt from a New York Times 2004 bio (there's that "mill town" reference again in the title - registration may be necessary):
"At times he can be blunt. Two young lesbians at the University of New Hampshire challenged him on why he does not support marriage for gay couples, a stance that might seem at odds with his support for affirmative action and civil rights generally. 'I don't think America's ready for that,' the senator replied. 'It's very simple.'
"He paused, seeing the crestfallen looks on their faces. 'It is heartbreaking,' he said. 'There is no question about that.'"
He doesn't say that it's heartbreaking that he doesn't support gay marriage - it's heart-breaking that "America isn't ready for it."
WOW.
Well, that concludes part III. Part IV - Mitt Romney...
Honestly, I didn't know a lot about him, so I had to do some digging.
For starters, a good article from Kathleen Parker of the Orlando Sentinel on the unfortunate timing of Edwards' announcement. A perfect summation of his press conference towards the end of the piece:
"Passionate, but not overwrought, he conveyed the persona of a deeply caring man who wants to make the world a better place. Either that, or the persona of a deeply cunning litigator adept at pulling a jury's heartstrings, which usually precedes the pulling of someone else's purse strings."
Whose purse strings were pulled? From his website, a description of his life before politics:
"For the next 20 years, John dedicated his career to representing families and children just like the families he grew up with in Robbins (North Carolina). Standing up against the powerful insurance industry and their armies of lawyers, John helped these families through the darkest moments of their lives to overcome tremendous challenges. His passionate advocacy for people like the folks who worked in the mill with his father earned him respect and recognition across the country."
What exactly does this mean? Kirsten Powers has argued on John Gibson's "The Big Story" that Republicans have little basis to criticize Edwards' abundant wealth - after all, wasn't he living the "American Dream" through hard work? He didn't grow up with a lot of money, being the son of a mill worker (Did you get that part yet?), and received a public education. He studied hard in law school and won big settlements for the "little guy" in heart-wrenching cases involving cerebral palsy and brain damage. Now it seems every time you turn around he's helping the downtrodden of New Orleans - isn't that be something President Bush should be doing, Dems argue?
On the face of it, not a bad argument. But let's look into how exactly Edwards achieved his wealth.
Via CNSNews, a "Heart-Wrenching Plea":
"But some of Edwards' critics say that as a trial lawyer, he relied more on his verbal skills than the latest scientific evidence to persuade juries that the doctors' mistakes had been instrumental in causing the cerebral palsy in the infants.
"Edwards' trial summaries 'routinely went beyond a recitation of his case to a heart-wrenching plea to jurors to listen to the unspoken voices of injured children,' according to a comprehensive analysis of Edwards' legal career by The Boston Globe in 2003.
"The Globe cited an example of Edwards' oratorical skills from a medical malpractice trial in 1985. Edwards had alleged that a doctor and a hospital had been responsible for the cerebral palsy afflicting then-five-year-old Jennifer Campbell.
"'I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her (Jennifer), I feel her presence,' Edwards told the jury according to court records. '[Jennifer's] inside me and she's talking to you ... And this is what she says to you. She says, 'I don't ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don't ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.''
"Edwards' emotional plea worked. Jennifer Campbell's family won a record jury verdict of $6.5 million against the hospital where the girl was born -- a judgment reduced later to $2.75 million on appeal. Edwards also settled with Jennifer's obstetrician for $1.5 million.
"Legal expert Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the book, The Rule of Lawyers, said Edwards' success in court was due in large part to his mastery of one important trait.
"'Edwards was clearly very good at managing the emotional tenor of a trial and that turns out to be at least as important as any particular skill in the sense of researching the fine points of law,' Olson told CNSNews.com .
"'These are the skills that you find in successful trial lawyers. They can tell a story that produces a certain emotional response. It's a gift,' Olson added.
"However, Olson believes trial lawyers 'have been getting away with an awful lot in cerebral palsy litigation,' by excluding certain scientific evidence.
"'[Trial lawyers] have been cashing in on cases where the doctor's conduct probably did not make any difference at all -- cases where the child was doomed to this condition based on things that happened before they ever got to the delivery room,' Olson said."
Read the rest of the "scientifically unfounded" article.
Here's a report from Trial Lawyers Inc., detailing the truth about our lawsuit culture (from 2003). You can see why someone would want to get into the trial lawyer business after reading this - seems like an easy way to make a quick buck - or, a quick million bucks, as the case may be.
More from National Review, from when Edwards was named Kerry's running mate in 2004:
"... 19 of Edwards's top 20 donors were plaintiffs' lawyers, 86 percent of his Senate campaign contributions came from personal-injury lawyers, and almost two-thirds of his field-leading presidential-campaign contributions last spring came from trial lawyers, their families, and their staffs. The Edwards campaign has even enjoyed the use of four private jets owned by his trial-lawyer buddies.
"The trial lawyers know their compatriot well. Since his election to the Senate, Edwards has voted consistently with their interests — against class-action reforms, against medical-malpractice reforms, against solutions to the asbestos bankruptcy crisis, even against proposed limitations on personal-injury lawsuits in the event of a terrorist attack."
Fantastic.
But there are more issues besides how Edwards achieved financial success and subsequently financed his political campaigns. Like, for instance, the Iraq War.
This is his Washington Post Op-ed piece in November 2005, where he famously declared "I was wrong." Here's the opening:
"Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda."
"What we were told"??? David Limbaugh's Bankrupt:
"Senator John Edwards said, 'Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons.' Later Edwards said he had made a mistake in supporting the Iraq war resolution and sharply criticized President Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld - a clear attempt, which was successful - to get himself back in the good graces of his party's leftist antiwar base."
Who has a political agenda NOW? As for whether or not Iraq had WMD before the war, Limbaugh cites evidence that WMD that Saddam Hussein bought from the Russians were moved to Syria and Lebanon before the war started. It also appears that WMD were even found IN IRAQ. (see pages 23 - 28 of Bankrupt).
The AP likened Edwards to Martin Luther King when he called out Hillary Clinton, saying "Silence is betrayal, and I believe it is a betrayal not to speak out against the escalation of the war in Iraq." Of course, at the time, Hillary was in Iraq and Afghanistan and unable to respond...interesting...not sure if Edwards has ever visited the troops? If he does, hopefully his opponents on the left won't use the opportunity to attack him without ability to responds, as he did to Hillary.
On other issues:
Abortion: He believes it is a constitutionally protected right, he voted no on banning even partial-birth abortions, he has a 100% favorability rating with NARAL, and he wants expanded embryonic stem cell research.
Minimum Wage: an increase, naturally. More reason not to support a minimum wage hike coming in a later post.
Civil Rights: Can this guy spin or what? An excerpt from a New York Times 2004 bio (there's that "mill town" reference again in the title - registration may be necessary):
"At times he can be blunt. Two young lesbians at the University of New Hampshire challenged him on why he does not support marriage for gay couples, a stance that might seem at odds with his support for affirmative action and civil rights generally. 'I don't think America's ready for that,' the senator replied. 'It's very simple.'
"He paused, seeing the crestfallen looks on their faces. 'It is heartbreaking,' he said. 'There is no question about that.'"
He doesn't say that it's heartbreaking that he doesn't support gay marriage - it's heart-breaking that "America isn't ready for it."
WOW.
Well, that concludes part III. Part IV - Mitt Romney...
On This Day...
...the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Tragic.
Odd statistics here from Life Site News, including "...43 percent of women obtaining repeat abortions, both those with children and those without, said they wanted to have (more) children..."
Here's the full report on "Repeat Abortion in the United States."
Sound like "safe, legal, and rare?"
If this is rare...
Why do women have abortions? Here are the results of one poll - not always in cases of extreme physical danger or rape, as many abortion advocates would like you to believe.
Despite this evidence, NARAL Pro-Choice America gives the nation as a whole a D- when it comes to "women's reproductive rights"...
What more could they possibly want??? Their website says that the organization is "fighting to protect the pro-choice values of freedom and privacy." They also say they are advocates of "common ground" and resent President Bush's inability to capitulate to their platform but instead "cave to political pressure from the right wing." Just so we're clear, "common ground" is code language for "pro-abortion" ("pro-choice" also means "pro-abortion") and "cave to political pressure from the right wing" really means that Bush chooses judicial nominees based on the entire spectrum of political issues, not just abortion.
(By the way, if these NARAL-type groups want to call me "anti-choice," fine. I AM ANTI-CHOICE. But I should be able to call you "pro-abortion."...that's when people get all up in arms and go back to Clinton's "safe, legal and rare" crap. "Pro-choice" is nothing but "pro-abortion"...no sort of semantic spin can hide that.)
Hopefully we won't have to celebrate a 35th year anniversary next year...but I don't see that happening...
Leaving you with a provocative piece from the National Center and more from LaShawn Barber.
Odd statistics here from Life Site News, including "...43 percent of women obtaining repeat abortions, both those with children and those without, said they wanted to have (more) children..."
Here's the full report on "Repeat Abortion in the United States."
Sound like "safe, legal, and rare?"
If this is rare...
Why do women have abortions? Here are the results of one poll - not always in cases of extreme physical danger or rape, as many abortion advocates would like you to believe.
Despite this evidence, NARAL Pro-Choice America gives the nation as a whole a D- when it comes to "women's reproductive rights"...
What more could they possibly want??? Their website says that the organization is "fighting to protect the pro-choice values of freedom and privacy." They also say they are advocates of "common ground" and resent President Bush's inability to capitulate to their platform but instead "cave to political pressure from the right wing." Just so we're clear, "common ground" is code language for "pro-abortion" ("pro-choice" also means "pro-abortion") and "cave to political pressure from the right wing" really means that Bush chooses judicial nominees based on the entire spectrum of political issues, not just abortion.
(By the way, if these NARAL-type groups want to call me "anti-choice," fine. I AM ANTI-CHOICE. But I should be able to call you "pro-abortion."...that's when people get all up in arms and go back to Clinton's "safe, legal and rare" crap. "Pro-choice" is nothing but "pro-abortion"...no sort of semantic spin can hide that.)
Hopefully we won't have to celebrate a 35th year anniversary next year...but I don't see that happening...
Leaving you with a provocative piece from the National Center and more from LaShawn Barber.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Who to Vote for in 2008? Part II
Hillary Clinton
Should we even go here??? Absolutely…
Amanda Carpenter’s must-read Dossier on Hillary Clinton details the following:
1) Foreign Money Sources…
…potentially available for Hillary to use for a 2008 presidential run (though, foreign money technically cannot support a domestic campaign – from Democracy Matters: “American law is governed by a clear principle that foreign governments, political parties, corporations, and individuals should not directly or indirectly influence any election. This principle is even extended to domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations, who are allowed to only give contributions that come from domestic profits…”) include, but presumably are not limited to, the following:
a) Johnny Chung - $366,000 total donation to the Democratic National Convention
b) The Australian Council for the Peaceful Reunification of China - $300,000 invitation to Bill Clinton to speak at a 2002 conference
c) The Dabbagh Group - $475,000 given to Bill Clinton for two speeches in 2002
d) Markson Sparks - $925,000 given to Bill Clinton for seven appearances between 2001 and 2002
e) CLSA Ltd. - $500,000 given to Bill Clinton for two events in 2001 and 2002
f) DNM Strategies - $200,000 for a thirty-minute speech given May 23, 2002
g) DaimlerChrysler - $500,000 pledged to Bill Clinton and Ted Turner to build a “peace park” in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea (Ugh. Sounds like Ann Coulter’s “give them a basketball” logic)
2) Other Suspicious Donors
a) the Peter Paul Scandal
i) first, I recommend you become familiar with the “Cuban Coffee Caper” – here’s the gist: Cuba’s economy was failing in the late 1970s, so, in order to alleviate some economic pressure, Russia had agreed to buy Cuban coffee at a price higher than what it was selling on the world market. Karl Fessler, a commodities broker from Germany, initiated a fraudulent sale of $8.7 million dollars worth of “Barahona” Arabic blend coffee which never existed. One of Fessler’s main cohorts in the scam was Peter Paul, who, at the time, was president of the Miami World Trade Center. Paul later pled guilty to conspiring to defraud the Cuban government.
ii) Fast forward to 2000, when Peter Paul hosts fundraising events for Hillary Clinton’s first run for the U.S. Senate. Though campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson claimed “we will not be accepting any contributions from [Peter Paul],” the evidence seems to show otherwise. Seems as if Hillary didn’t report about $2 million dollars she received in contributions.
b) Willie Tan – Clinton accepted $8,000 from this “sweatshop owner” (via Pacific Magazine, which paints a now-rosy picture):
“Tan helped launch the garment industry in Saipan 20 years ago, and in those days the Saipan factories deserved to be labeled as "sweat shops." Tan's-and other companies'-factories were hot, full of fabric dust and crowded. In recent years, however, the three Tan Holdings factories have cleaned up their act: They are mostly air conditioned and no longer fodder for New York Times' exposés about the exploitation of Asian workers.” (see Byron York for more)
c) John Burgess – slimeball owner of International Profit Associates (bio here). Who exactly is John Burgess? According to the New York Times in May 2006, he is “a disbarred New York lawyer with a criminal record for attempted larceny and patronizing a sixteen-year-old prostitute.” Reportedly, Hillary accepted $157,000 in campaign donations from the organization, which, unlike most politicians, she did not give back. Incidentally, Bill Clinton received $125,000 from the same organization in 2001.
3) Tax Cuts
a) voted against the Bush Tax Cuts four separate times in 2001 and 2003
b) voted against capital gains tax cuts four separate times between 2001 and 2006
4) Pork Barrel Spending Schemes – the following laundry list represents Hillary’s ideology of the government, rather than its citizens, offers the best chance at economic growth:
a) $350,000 allocated for a regional survey by Albany’s Center for Economic Growth
b) $4 million dollars allocated for Rochester’s National Center for Excellence (see the bottom of the page)
c) $250,000 allocated for the Metropolitan Development Authority of Syracuse and Central New York’s “Vision 2010 Economic Development Strategy”
d) $250,000 allocated for Rural Opportunities, Inc.
e) $250,000 allocated for Broome-Tioga Works
Ugh. Sound like a lot of spending to you?
5) Hillary Care
From World Net Daily:
“In the 1990s, the idea of universal health care was called Hillary Care because Hillary Clinton orchestrated the assembly of a national universal health-care program that was promoted to the American people and proposed to Congress.
“It would have assembled a complicated set of payment procedures for individuals and companies, and then mandated various coverage levels and circumstances. Congress ultimately rejected the proposal out of hand, saying it could not be repaired enough to make it workable.
“However, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney just a few months ago signed into law the proposal from that state's Legislature launching a new mandatory universal health insurance program.
“That specific program requires all uninsured adults to buy that insurance by July 1, 2007 – and prove it on their income tax returns – or face fines that could range into the thousands of dollars.”
Nice to know we can ALWAYS count on Massachusetts to take the lead, even with Republicans at the helm. How does this sound – buy from the government, or else??? That’s what Hillary wants – do you?
6) Illegal Immigration
Michelle Malkin documents her flip-flops here.
7) Iraq War
Here is her flip-flop on that, too.
Wow, Obama’s looking better by the day, isn’t he? And there’s more out there on Hillary, sure to come! Next up: John Edwards…
Should we even go here??? Absolutely…
Amanda Carpenter’s must-read Dossier on Hillary Clinton details the following:
1) Foreign Money Sources…
…potentially available for Hillary to use for a 2008 presidential run (though, foreign money technically cannot support a domestic campaign – from Democracy Matters: “American law is governed by a clear principle that foreign governments, political parties, corporations, and individuals should not directly or indirectly influence any election. This principle is even extended to domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations, who are allowed to only give contributions that come from domestic profits…”) include, but presumably are not limited to, the following:
a) Johnny Chung - $366,000 total donation to the Democratic National Convention
b) The Australian Council for the Peaceful Reunification of China - $300,000 invitation to Bill Clinton to speak at a 2002 conference
c) The Dabbagh Group - $475,000 given to Bill Clinton for two speeches in 2002
d) Markson Sparks - $925,000 given to Bill Clinton for seven appearances between 2001 and 2002
e) CLSA Ltd. - $500,000 given to Bill Clinton for two events in 2001 and 2002
f) DNM Strategies - $200,000 for a thirty-minute speech given May 23, 2002
g) DaimlerChrysler - $500,000 pledged to Bill Clinton and Ted Turner to build a “peace park” in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea (Ugh. Sounds like Ann Coulter’s “give them a basketball” logic)
2) Other Suspicious Donors
a) the Peter Paul Scandal
i) first, I recommend you become familiar with the “Cuban Coffee Caper” – here’s the gist: Cuba’s economy was failing in the late 1970s, so, in order to alleviate some economic pressure, Russia had agreed to buy Cuban coffee at a price higher than what it was selling on the world market. Karl Fessler, a commodities broker from Germany, initiated a fraudulent sale of $8.7 million dollars worth of “Barahona” Arabic blend coffee which never existed. One of Fessler’s main cohorts in the scam was Peter Paul, who, at the time, was president of the Miami World Trade Center. Paul later pled guilty to conspiring to defraud the Cuban government.
ii) Fast forward to 2000, when Peter Paul hosts fundraising events for Hillary Clinton’s first run for the U.S. Senate. Though campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson claimed “we will not be accepting any contributions from [Peter Paul],” the evidence seems to show otherwise. Seems as if Hillary didn’t report about $2 million dollars she received in contributions.
b) Willie Tan – Clinton accepted $8,000 from this “sweatshop owner” (via Pacific Magazine, which paints a now-rosy picture):
“Tan helped launch the garment industry in Saipan 20 years ago, and in those days the Saipan factories deserved to be labeled as "sweat shops." Tan's-and other companies'-factories were hot, full of fabric dust and crowded. In recent years, however, the three Tan Holdings factories have cleaned up their act: They are mostly air conditioned and no longer fodder for New York Times' exposés about the exploitation of Asian workers.” (see Byron York for more)
c) John Burgess – slimeball owner of International Profit Associates (bio here). Who exactly is John Burgess? According to the New York Times in May 2006, he is “a disbarred New York lawyer with a criminal record for attempted larceny and patronizing a sixteen-year-old prostitute.” Reportedly, Hillary accepted $157,000 in campaign donations from the organization, which, unlike most politicians, she did not give back. Incidentally, Bill Clinton received $125,000 from the same organization in 2001.
3) Tax Cuts
a) voted against the Bush Tax Cuts four separate times in 2001 and 2003
b) voted against capital gains tax cuts four separate times between 2001 and 2006
4) Pork Barrel Spending Schemes – the following laundry list represents Hillary’s ideology of the government, rather than its citizens, offers the best chance at economic growth:
a) $350,000 allocated for a regional survey by Albany’s Center for Economic Growth
b) $4 million dollars allocated for Rochester’s National Center for Excellence (see the bottom of the page)
c) $250,000 allocated for the Metropolitan Development Authority of Syracuse and Central New York’s “Vision 2010 Economic Development Strategy”
d) $250,000 allocated for Rural Opportunities, Inc.
e) $250,000 allocated for Broome-Tioga Works
Ugh. Sound like a lot of spending to you?
5) Hillary Care
From World Net Daily:
“In the 1990s, the idea of universal health care was called Hillary Care because Hillary Clinton orchestrated the assembly of a national universal health-care program that was promoted to the American people and proposed to Congress.
“It would have assembled a complicated set of payment procedures for individuals and companies, and then mandated various coverage levels and circumstances. Congress ultimately rejected the proposal out of hand, saying it could not be repaired enough to make it workable.
“However, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney just a few months ago signed into law the proposal from that state's Legislature launching a new mandatory universal health insurance program.
“That specific program requires all uninsured adults to buy that insurance by July 1, 2007 – and prove it on their income tax returns – or face fines that could range into the thousands of dollars.”
Nice to know we can ALWAYS count on Massachusetts to take the lead, even with Republicans at the helm. How does this sound – buy from the government, or else??? That’s what Hillary wants – do you?
6) Illegal Immigration
Michelle Malkin documents her flip-flops here.
7) Iraq War
Here is her flip-flop on that, too.
Wow, Obama’s looking better by the day, isn’t he? And there’s more out there on Hillary, sure to come! Next up: John Edwards…
While I Was Gone...
Catch-up items:
1) George Bush in the Wall Street Journal. Two important points of emphasis:
On the Iraq War: "But we can help Iraq defeat the extremists inside and outside of Iraq--and we can help provide the necessary breathing space for this young government to meet its responsibilities. If democracy fails and the extremists prevail in Iraq, America's enemies will be stronger, more lethal, and emboldened by our defeat. Leaders in both parties understand the stakes in this struggle. We now have the opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus to fight and win the war."
On the economy: "It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues. Because revenues have grown and we've done a better job of holding the line on domestic spending, we met our goal of cutting the deficit in half three years ahead of schedule. By continuing these policies, we can balance the federal budget by 2012 while funding our priorities and making the tax cuts permanent. In early February, I will submit a budget that does exactly that. The bottom line is tax relief and spending restraint are good for the American worker, good for the American taxpayer, and good for the federal budget. Now is not the time to raise taxes on the American people."
I think the success of the economy, particularly recently, has gone FAR under the radar, for a couple reasons. One, I think many in the media are reluctant to give Bush any credit for any successes during his presidency. Two, though, and perhaps more importantly, I don't think Bush himself has publicized his achievements on this front enough. Everyone is so concerned about the war that any news absent from it becomes almost unimportant.
Democrats wanting to raise taxes and the minimum wage when the Dow keeps setting records, day after day? Doesn't make sense...
2) The Twenty Most Annoying Liberals in the United States, via Right Wing News. Some good ones here - aren't even liberals annoyed with these people? I'd like to hear from you. And Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton didn't even make the cut!
3) Oriana Fallaci, as portrayed by Atlantic Monthly, via Mark Steyn. Read it in full.
More on her life and works here.
Tributes here and here.
4) It's official. I refer you to Part I to find out where Obama stands on key issues. I'll keep digging and update with more info.
5) Deb Saunders tells Barbara Boxer to "cork it."
Good stuff.
There may be a couple more of these "catch-up" type posts in the upcoming days as I sort through all I want to write about. Feel free to comment on any of the above, and I'll try to respond.
1) George Bush in the Wall Street Journal. Two important points of emphasis:
On the Iraq War: "But we can help Iraq defeat the extremists inside and outside of Iraq--and we can help provide the necessary breathing space for this young government to meet its responsibilities. If democracy fails and the extremists prevail in Iraq, America's enemies will be stronger, more lethal, and emboldened by our defeat. Leaders in both parties understand the stakes in this struggle. We now have the opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus to fight and win the war."
On the economy: "It is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues. Because revenues have grown and we've done a better job of holding the line on domestic spending, we met our goal of cutting the deficit in half three years ahead of schedule. By continuing these policies, we can balance the federal budget by 2012 while funding our priorities and making the tax cuts permanent. In early February, I will submit a budget that does exactly that. The bottom line is tax relief and spending restraint are good for the American worker, good for the American taxpayer, and good for the federal budget. Now is not the time to raise taxes on the American people."
I think the success of the economy, particularly recently, has gone FAR under the radar, for a couple reasons. One, I think many in the media are reluctant to give Bush any credit for any successes during his presidency. Two, though, and perhaps more importantly, I don't think Bush himself has publicized his achievements on this front enough. Everyone is so concerned about the war that any news absent from it becomes almost unimportant.
Democrats wanting to raise taxes and the minimum wage when the Dow keeps setting records, day after day? Doesn't make sense...
2) The Twenty Most Annoying Liberals in the United States, via Right Wing News. Some good ones here - aren't even liberals annoyed with these people? I'd like to hear from you. And Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton didn't even make the cut!
3) Oriana Fallaci, as portrayed by Atlantic Monthly, via Mark Steyn. Read it in full.
More on her life and works here.
Tributes here and here.
4) It's official. I refer you to Part I to find out where Obama stands on key issues. I'll keep digging and update with more info.
5) Deb Saunders tells Barbara Boxer to "cork it."
Good stuff.
There may be a couple more of these "catch-up" type posts in the upcoming days as I sort through all I want to write about. Feel free to comment on any of the above, and I'll try to respond.
New Links!
I'm back! If anyone's still reading...
I had trouble with the website for a few weeks, but everything seems to be okay now - I'm still new at this!
A few new links I want to point out. First, the books I'm reading (none of which I'm finished yet - it takes a long time to get through some of this stuff!):
1) High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton by Ann Coulter. So far, a pretty scathing dissection of the goings-on in the White House during the Monica Lewinsky mess. It illustrates pretty clearly how morality has gone out the window in this country, why "sex doesn't matter," and why committing perjury against oneself not only is no big deal, but will advance your presidency and increase your popularity afterwards...which, to me, is indescribable.
2) Musclehead Revolution by Kevin McCullough. A fairly standard "why liberalism sucks" publication with more emphasis on God and religion. So far, nothing overly original, but pretty good.
3) In Defense of Internment by Michelle Malkin. Pretty fascinating stuff, if you're a history buff - otherwise, it may be a bit dry. The book attempts to make a case for the internment of ethnic Japanese during WWII and applies it to the potential necessity for the same ethnic profiling today to fight the War on Terror. If you can read this objectively (meaning, don't cry "Racism!" because the author tackles an unpopular and delicate topic), it's worth it...especially since the point of view is far different from the one presented in your 11th grade history class.
4) The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 by Lawrence Wright. Honestly I haven't gotten far enough in this one to make a comment. I'll post about it later.
5) The Enemy Within by Michael Savage. Again, another in the line of "why liberalism sucks." So far, I'd rate this one ahead of McCullough's, and Savage has not come off as hard as he can. Good read.
Here are the other two new site links:
1) American Congress for Truth. From the website, American Congress for Truth is "a non profit organization dedicated to educating millions of uninformed Americans about the threat of radical Islam to world peace and national security."
Find out why Brigitte Gabriel is one of the most fearless women in the world today.
2) Irshad Manji. I've linked her under "Blogs" but it's much more just a website. Here you can learn about "Project Ijtihad," which, according to Manji, is "Islam's lost tradition of independent thinking."
Manji helps reinforce the idea that there are Muslims craving reform within their own religion. So few of them, however, speak out...or, if they do, they don't receive much attention. Manji has popularized the Muslim reform movement - check it out.
Hopefully the website will keep growing with the more research that I do. I encourage you to pass on any suggestions for additional links - thanks!
I had trouble with the website for a few weeks, but everything seems to be okay now - I'm still new at this!
A few new links I want to point out. First, the books I'm reading (none of which I'm finished yet - it takes a long time to get through some of this stuff!):
1) High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton by Ann Coulter. So far, a pretty scathing dissection of the goings-on in the White House during the Monica Lewinsky mess. It illustrates pretty clearly how morality has gone out the window in this country, why "sex doesn't matter," and why committing perjury against oneself not only is no big deal, but will advance your presidency and increase your popularity afterwards...which, to me, is indescribable.
2) Musclehead Revolution by Kevin McCullough. A fairly standard "why liberalism sucks" publication with more emphasis on God and religion. So far, nothing overly original, but pretty good.
3) In Defense of Internment by Michelle Malkin. Pretty fascinating stuff, if you're a history buff - otherwise, it may be a bit dry. The book attempts to make a case for the internment of ethnic Japanese during WWII and applies it to the potential necessity for the same ethnic profiling today to fight the War on Terror. If you can read this objectively (meaning, don't cry "Racism!" because the author tackles an unpopular and delicate topic), it's worth it...especially since the point of view is far different from the one presented in your 11th grade history class.
4) The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 by Lawrence Wright. Honestly I haven't gotten far enough in this one to make a comment. I'll post about it later.
5) The Enemy Within by Michael Savage. Again, another in the line of "why liberalism sucks." So far, I'd rate this one ahead of McCullough's, and Savage has not come off as hard as he can. Good read.
Here are the other two new site links:
1) American Congress for Truth. From the website, American Congress for Truth is "a non profit organization dedicated to educating millions of uninformed Americans about the threat of radical Islam to world peace and national security."
Find out why Brigitte Gabriel is one of the most fearless women in the world today.
2) Irshad Manji. I've linked her under "Blogs" but it's much more just a website. Here you can learn about "Project Ijtihad," which, according to Manji, is "Islam's lost tradition of independent thinking."
Manji helps reinforce the idea that there are Muslims craving reform within their own religion. So few of them, however, speak out...or, if they do, they don't receive much attention. Manji has popularized the Muslim reform movement - check it out.
Hopefully the website will keep growing with the more research that I do. I encourage you to pass on any suggestions for additional links - thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)